MidAmerica now has service on Allegiant to: Las Vegas, Orlando/Sanford, Punta Gorda/Fort Myers (begins February 18, 2016),[14] St. Petersburg/Clearwater (Seasonal:) Fort Walton Beach (begins June 2, 2016)[15]
^Great! Would love to see them add some or all of Myrtle Beach, Savannah, New Orleans, Austin, and/or Phoenix. All of which are pretty thoroughly covered by our peer cities.
The airline did not dispute the newspaper’s findings, which included:
• Forty-two of Allegiant’s 86 planes broke down in mid-flight at least once in 2015. Among them were 15 forced to land by failing engines, nine by overheating tail compartments and six by smoke or the smell of something burning.
• After certain systems on Allegiant planes fail, the company repairs them and puts the planes back in service, only to see the same systems fail again. Eighteen times last year, key parts such as engines, sensors and electronics failed once in flight, got checked out, and then failed again, causing another unexpected landing.
• Allegiant’s jets are, on average, 22 years old. The average age of planes flown by other carriers is 12. Experts say planes as old as Allegiant’s require the most rigorous maintenance in the industry. But Allegiant doesn’t staff its own mechanics at 107 of the 118 airports it flies to.
• Allegiant relies most heavily on McDonnell Douglas MD-80s, an aging model retired by all but two other major U.S. carriers. The company’s MD-80s fail twice as often as those operated by American Airlines and three times as often as those flown by Delta.
Keep in mind, VauJet turned themselves around, rebranded their airline as AirTran, and then succeeded at least well enough to convince Southwest to buy them. Of course, I rather hope Allegiant can get things under better control with a little less prompting. But I have enough faith in the system to think the odds of this are fairly high. I don't think any airline mechanic really wants a body count. Nor any pilot, especially what with the odds of being in the count going up as you move forward in the plane . . . and the pilots sit pretty far forward.
Keep in mind, VauJet turned themselves around, rebranded their airline as AirTran, and then succeeded at least well enough to convince Southwest to buy them. Of course, I rather hope Allegiant can get things under better control with a little less prompting. But I have enough faith in the system to think the odds of this are fairly high. I don't think any airline mechanic really wants a body count. Nor any pilot, especially what with the odds of being in the count going up as you move forward in the plane . . . and the pilots sit pretty far forward.
Yes, but ValuJet only turned around because the Feds intervened and allowed them to reemerge with most of its fleet grounded - after the Everglades crash.
ValuJet then merged with the smaller AirTran - not necessarily rebranded - because after the Everglades crash in 1996 nobody wanted to fly ValuJet.
I remember ValuJet promoting itself as safer after the Feds intervened as well as offering promotional fares - but nobody would touch them.
Although Allegiant Airlines has done wonders for MidAmerica, the Feds need to get onto Allegiant Airlines.
Why does a tragedy have to take place before the Feds intervene?
And by the way, TWA was notorious for having old planes too, which is an underlying theory as to why Flight 800 blew up over the Atlantic on its way to Paris with 230 souls. That plane was ancient (25 years old), built in 1971, and was patch-worked over its existence. It was flying in 1996 still.
I once flew on TWA DC-9 out of Lambert heading to Texas and that plane was old, rickety and smelly. It had the old red and white livery on it.
As we taxied down the runway, the plane was forced to sit on runway because a storm came in and engulfed the St. Louis region. It was a night flight too. The pilots tried to beat storm, but couldn't. We sat on that damn plane for almost two hours on the runway and could hear the rain pelting the plane and winds were gusting. People were requesting water and snacks and the flight attendants couldn't give us anything citing they could get clearance for take off from Air Traffic Control during the dispersal. It was hot, kids were crying, people were going to the bathroom and it smelled as if some of them were taking dumps. The A/C could not be turned on full blast for some reason. I got sick.
Needless to say, I just wanted to get off. The risk factors were too high. The worst flight ever. But ultimately we got to our destination safely.
With that said, large commercial passenger jets that still transport fare-paying passengers should be mandated to retire at 20-25 years, I think. I read somewhere that after 20 years the chances are greater for a catastrophe.
Pressurization cycles are much more important to aircraft life than age. It might have been a small factor in flight 800, but more of it was deign and operational choices. As I recall the NTSB held TWA more or less blameless on that one. They'd followed all the recs. (The fact that they were changed immediately after notwithstanding. They always are. It's part of the process.) And by then TWA was well into a fleet renewal program and had one of the youngest fleets in the industry. (They'd just retired their 727s and L-1011s and replaced them with MD-80s, 717s, 767s, and 757s. And honestly, it was probably at least as much about crew requirements as age. All the birds replaced required a flight engineer. The new ones did not. Fewer engines. Fewer folks in the cockpit. Less expensive maintenance. Less fuel required per seat.) As I recall Flight 800 was caught in an unholy terror of simple stuff everyone overlooked, most of which could have happened to any 747 of any age. Avgas is not especially volatile at ordinary temperatures. (Which is to say not all that much of it ends up in the air. Volatility is specifically a measure of how quickly a liquid evaporates.) No one expected a tank full of gas to randomly explode. They don't do that. If they did the stuff wouldn't be very useful. You have to heat it up quite a bit before you can ignite it. Candle wax doesn't burn until you not only melt it, but vaporize it. (Or make it evaporate really fast in a small space, so that you get very concentrated vapor. It is the vapor that burns, not the solid or even the liquid. In fact, the liquid wax cools the wick and keeps it from burning. Much like the exhaust gas from the compressor on a Saturn V cooled the rocket nozzle and kept it from . . . well . . . vaporizing.)
Avgas is a little lighter than that, but less than one might think. And gasoline likewise. The same basic principal applies. It's why you have a compression stroke in an internal combustion engine before the power stroke. The ideal gas law tells us that as we decrease the volume of a space while leaving the same amount of air (and fuel) in that space, the temperature will increase. As the temperature increases the aerosolized fuel vaporizes. Which is to say it becomes more gas like as the liquid fuel does the gaseous equivalent of a solid dissolving in a liquid. Atomizing it into a finer mist makes this process easier and faster by increasing the surface area, but the important part is the temperature. As you add sugar to water you reach a point where it no longer dissolves, but falls to the bottom of the glass. If you then take that same glass and heat it enough the rest of the sugar will dissolve. Heating the gas, likewise, increases the amount of vaporized fuel it can carry. (For that reason a hot day at fifty percent humidity feels wetter than a cold one at ninety-five. The hot day at fifty percent actually <i>is</i> wetter. In order to burn, the gas (yep, it really is a gas at that point) needs to contain quite a lot of fuel. At standard temperature and pressure air doesn't hold enough vaporized fuel for a combustion reaction. But if you heat it up enough . . .
Well, there was a heat source right below the centerline fuel tank. (A malfunctioning air conditioner, as I recall? That was working hard on a hot day, as the plane sat over-long on the runway due to delays.) I doubt most people would think that an otherwise minor air conditioner fault would destroy an aircraft. But it did serve nicely to heat the fuel tank, rather like a pot on a stove. And inside that sealed tank the air clearly held a lot of vaporized fuel. So when a low voltage communication short circuit created a small spark . . . well . . . The fuel tank behaved much like the piston in your car. Spark plug and all. Normally there's not that much voltage in a low-voltage communication line. Which is why you can run the through a fuel tank. (A communication line for a temperature probe, or a fuel sensor, say. The sort of thing you might even want in your fuel tank.) But something caused a voltage spike in that wiring harness. And there's your spark. Oops. Which is why that tank is always filled at take off now. The same spark that can ignite hot aerosolized fuel is harmless when submerged in liquid fuel. And you burn off all that fuel in high altitude flight, where the tank is cool as a cucumber thanks to the lack of atmosphere at thirty grand keeping everything cool that isn't warmed up with cabin heaters. No need for AC, no heat source. Which also removes the problem. Sure, wiring harnesses tend to be more reliable in newer aircraft . . . but that didn't help the brand spanking new Swissair MD-11 that cooked off over Nova Scotia. (Also a short circuit, though in a line voltage circuit this time, which is why it could ignite insulation and not just fuel.) There are nice episodes of Air Crash Investigation that explain both pretty well if you enjoy that sort of thing.
As to why it takes a body count? We learn best from our mistakes and we tend to notice them a little better when there's a real cost to them. Does the NTSB need to have a long talk with Allegiant? Maybe. Not really familiar enough with the situation to comment. But I can about assure you that no one in aviation wants planes killing people, so they'll try to make sure nothing gets that far out of hand. On the other hand . . . we often fail to realize just what can result in ugly. But given that it's statistically safer to ride that 1991 MD-80 with a passing maintenance history than someone's 2014 Volvo with dealership grade care . . . I'll gladly take that MD-80 to Chitown to catch the Boeing bird to Asia. (After riding my 1990 Miata to whoever drops me at the airport. So, your risk assessment may vary. For me, I know the biggest problem is pilot and driver error.)
Anyway, that's probably more than anyone wanted, so I'll desist now. Back to Belleville.
Highlights:
- Expected peak of 21 flights per week in 2017
- Pursuing parking lot expansion
- Air Force to use runway from Jan-Mar and pay $40,000 per month for "substantial use" (300+ landings or gross cumulative weight of 5 million pounds)
I would think so, too, just running simple math in my head and not knowing any particulars. But I suppose they're planning for future growth as well (which, given Mid-America's track record, seems a little premature).
